Geology topics

Daniel E. Christiansen

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel E. Christiansen.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2017

Simulation of daily streamflow for 12 river basins in western Iowa using the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, constructed Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System models to estimate daily streamflow for 12 river basins in western Iowa that drain into the Missouri River. The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System is a deterministic, distributed-parameter, physical-process-based modeling system developed to evaluate the response of streamflow and general drainage basin hydrology to various combinations of climate and land use. Calibration periods for each basin varied depending on the period of record available for daily mean streamflow measurements at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations. A geographic information system tool was used to delineate each basin and estimate initial values for model parameters based on basin physical and geographical features. A U.S. Geological Survey automatic calibration tool that uses a shuffled complex evolution algorithm was used for initial calibration, and then manual modifications were made to parameter values to complete the calibration of each basin model. The main objective of the calibration was to match daily discharge values of simulated streamflow to measured daily discharge values. The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model was calibrated at 42 sites located in the 12 river basins in western Iowa. The accuracy of the simulated daily streamflow values at the 42 calibration sites varied by river and by site. The models were satisfactory at 36 of the sites based on statistical results. Unsatisfactory performance at the six other sites can be attributed to several factors: (1) low flow, no flow, and flashy flow conditions in headwater subbasins having a small drainage area; (2) poor representation of the groundwater and storage components of flow within a basin; (3) lack of accounting for basin withdrawals and water use; and (4) limited availability and accuracy of meteorological input data. The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System models of 12 river basins in western Iowa will provide water-resource managers with a consistent and documented method for estimating streamflow at ungaged sites and aid in environmental studies, hydraulic design, water management, and water-quality projects.

Iowa↗

USGS2016

Simulated impacts of climate change on phosphorus loading to Lake Michigan

Phosphorus (P) loading to the Great Lakes has caused various types of eutrophication problems. Future climatic changes may modify this loading because climatic models project changes in future meteorological conditions, especially for the key hydrologic driver — precipitation. Therefore, the goal of this study is to project how P loading may change from the range of projected climatic changes. To project the future response in P loading, the HydroSPARROW approach was developed that links results from two spatially explicit models, the SPAtially Referenced Regression on Watershed attributes (SPARROW) transport and fate watershed model and the water-quantity Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS). PRMS was used to project changes in streamflow throughout the Lake Michigan Basin using downscaled meteorological data from eight General Circulation Models (GCMs) subjected to three greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Downscaled GCMs project a + 2.1 to + 4.0 °C change in average-annual air temperature (+ 2.6 °C average) and a − 5.1% to + 16.7% change in total annual precipitation (+ 5.1% average) for this geographic area by the middle of this century (2045–2065) and larger changes by the end of the century. The climatic changes by mid-century are projected to result in a − 21.2% to + 8.9% change in total annual streamflow (− 1.8% average) and a − 29.6% to + 17.2% change in total annual P loading (− 3.1% average). Although the average projected changes in streamflow and P loading are relatively small for the entire basin, considerable variability exists spatially and among GCMs because of their variability in projected future precipitation.

Lake Michigan↗

USGS2015

Simulation of daily streamflow for nine river basins in eastern Iowa using the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, constructed Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System models to estimate daily streamflow for nine river basins in eastern Iowa that drain into the Mississippi River. The models are part of a suite of methods for estimating daily streamflow at ungaged sites. The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System is a deterministic, distributed- parameter, physical-process-based modeling system developed to evaluate the response of streamflow and general drainage basin hydrology to various combinations of climate and land use. Calibration and validation periods used in each basin mostly were October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2012, but differed depending on the period of record available for daily mean streamflow measurements at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations. A geographic information system tool was used to delineate each basin and estimate values for model parameters based on basin physical and geographical features. A U.S. Geological Survey auto-calibration tool that uses a shuffled complex evolution algorithm was used for initial calibration, and then manual modifications were made to parameter values to complete the calibration of each basin model. The main objective of the calibration was to match daily discharge values of simulated streamflow to measured daily discharge values. The accuracy of Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model streamflow estimates of nine river basins in eastern Iowa as compared to measured values at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations varied. The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System models of nine river basins in eastern Iowa were satisfactory at estimating daily streamflow at 57 of the 79 calibration sites and 13 of the 14 validation sites based on statistical results. Unsatisfactory performance can be contributed to several factors: (1) low flow, no flow, and flashy flow conditions in headwater subbasins having a small drainage area; (2) poor representation of the groundwater and storage components of flow within a basin; (3) lack of accounting for basin withdrawals and water use; and (4) the availability and accuracy of meteorological input data. The Precipitation- Runoff Modeling System models of nine river basins in eastern Iowa will provide water-resource managers with a consistent and documented method for estimating streamflow at ungaged sites and aid in environmental studies, hydraulic design, water management, and water-quality projects.

Iowa↗

USGS2015

Evaluation of statistical and rainfall-runoff models for predicting historical daily streamflow time series in the Des Moines and Iowa River watersheds

Daily records of streamflow are essential to understanding hydrologic systems and managing the interactions between human and natural systems. Many watersheds and locations lack streamgages to provide accurate and reliable records of daily streamflow. In such ungaged watersheds, statistical tools and rainfall-runoff models are used to estimate daily streamflow. Previous work compared 19 different techniques for predicting daily streamflow records in the southeastern United States. Here, five of the better-performing methods are compared in a different hydroclimatic region of the United States, in Iowa. The methods fall into three classes: (1) drainage-area ratio methods, (2) nonlinear spatial interpolations using flow duration curves, and (3) mechanistic rainfall-runoff models. The first two classes are each applied with nearest-neighbor and map-correlated index streamgages. Using a threefold validation and robust rank-based evaluation, the methods are assessed for overall goodness of fit of the hydrograph of daily streamflow, the ability to reproduce a daily, no-fail storage-yield curve, and the ability to reproduce key streamflow statistics. As in the Southeast study, a nonlinear spatial interpolation of daily streamflow using flow duration curves is found to be a method with the best predictive accuracy. Comparisons with previous work in Iowa show that the accuracy of mechanistic models with at-site calibration is substantially degraded in the ungaged framework.

Iowa, Minnesota↗

USGS2014

The effects of Missouri River mainstem reservoir system operations on 2011 flooding using a Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model

In 2011 the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System (Reservoir System) experienced the largest volume of flood waters since the initiation of record-keeping in the nineteenth century. The high levels of runoff from both snowpack and rainfall stressed the Reservoir System’s capacity to control flood waters and caused massive damage and disruption along the river. The flooding and resulting damage along the Missouri River brought increased public attention to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operation of the Reservoir System. To help understand the effects of Reservoir System operation on the 2011 Missouri River flood flows, the U.S. Geological Survey Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System was used to construct a model of the Missouri River Basin to simulate flows at streamgages and dam locations with the effects of Reservoir System operation (regulation) on flow removed. Statistical tests indicate that the Missouri River Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model is a good fit for high-flow monthly and annual stream flow estimation. A comparison of simulated unregulated flows and measured regulated flows show that regulation greatly reduced spring peak flow events, consolidated two summer peak flow events to one with a markedly decreased magnitude, and maintained higher than normal base flow beyond the end of water year 2011. Further comparison of results indicate that without regulation, flows greater than those measured would have occurred and been sustained for much longer, frequently in excess of 30 days, and flooding associated with high-flow events would have been more severe.

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Monta↗

USGS2014

Basin-scale simulation of current and potential climate changed hydrologic conditions in the Lake Michigan Basin, United States

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) is the largest public investment in the Great Lakes in two decades. A task force of 11 Federal agencies developed an action plan to implement the initiative. The U.S. Department of the Interior was one of the 11 agencies that entered into an interagency agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the GLRI to complete scientific projects throughout the Great Lakes basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, a bureau within the Department of the Interior, is involved in the GLRI to provide scientific support to management decisions as well as measure progress of the Great Lakes basin restoration efforts. This report presents basin-scale simulated current and forecast climatic and hydrologic conditions in the Lake Michigan Basin. The forecasts were obtained by constructing and calibrating a Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) model of the Lake Michigan Basin; the PRMS model was calibrated using the parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis (PEST) software suite. The calibrated model was used to evaluate potential responses to climate change by using four simulated carbon emission scenarios from eight general circulation models released by the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3. Statistically downscaled datasets of these scenarios were used to project hydrologic response for the Lake Michigan Basin. In general, most of the observation sites in the Lake Michigan Basin indicated slight increases in annual streamflow in response to future climate change scenarios. Monthly streamflows indicated a general shift from the current (2014) winter-storage/snowmelt-pulse system to a system with a more equally distributed hydrograph throughout the year. Simulated soil moisture within the basin illustrates that conditions within the basin are also expected to change on a monthly timescale. One effect of increasing air temperature as a result of the changing climate was the appreciable increase in the length of the growing season in the Lake Michigan Basin. The increase in growing season will cause an increase in evapotranspiration across the Lake Michigan Basin, which will directly affect soil moisture and late growing season streamflows. Output from the Lake Michigan Basin PRMS model is available through an online dynamic web mapping service available at (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5175/). The map service includes layers for the each of the 8 global climate models and 4 carbon emission scenarios combinations for 12 hydrologic model state variables. The layers are pre-rendered maps of annual hydrologic response from 1977 through 2099 that provide an easily accessible online method to examine climate change effects across the Lake Michigan Basin.

Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin↗

USGS2013

Use of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) for simulating hydrology and water quality in the Cedar River Basin, Iowa, 2000--10

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, used the Soil and Water Assessment Tool to simulate streamflow and nitrate loads within the Cedar River Basin, Iowa. The goal was to assess the ability of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool to estimate streamflow and nitrate loads in gaged and ungaged basins in Iowa. The Cedar River Basin model uses measured streamflow data from 12 U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations for hydrology calibration. The U.S. Geological Survey software program, Load Estimator, was used to estimate annual and monthly nitrate loads based on measured nitrate concentrations and streamflow data from three Iowa Department of Natural Resources Storage and Retrieval/Water Quality Exchange stations, located throughout the basin, for nitrate load calibration. The hydrology of the model was calibrated for the period of January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2004, and validated for the period of January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2010. Simulated daily, monthly, and annual streamflow resulted in Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of model efficiency (E NS ) values ranging from 0.44 to 0.83, 0.72 to 0.93, and 0.56 to 0.97, respectively, and coefficient of determination (R 2 ) values ranging from 0.55 to 0.87, 0.74 to 0.94, and 0.65 to 0.99, respectively, for the calibration period. The percent bias ranged from -19 to 10, -16 to 10, and -19 to 10 for daily, monthly, and annual simulation, respectively. The validation period resulted in daily, monthly, and annual E NS values ranging from 0.49 to 0.77, 0.69 to 0.91, and -0.22 to 0.95, respectively; R 2 values ranging from 0.59 to 0.84, 0.74 to 0.92, and 0.36 to 0.92, respectively; and percent bias ranging from -16 for all time steps to percent bias of 14, 15, and 15, respectively. The nitrate calibration was based on a small subset of the locations used in the hydrology calibration with limited measured data. Model performance ranges from unsatisfactory to very good for the calibration period (January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2004). Results for the validation period (January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2010) indicate a need for an increase of measured data as well as more refined documented management practices at a higher resolution. Simulated nitrate loads resulted in monthly and annual E NS values ranging from 0.28 to 0.82 and 0.61 to 0.86, respectively, and monthly and annual R 2 values ranging from 0.65 to 0.81 and 0.65 to 0.88, respectively, for the calibration period. The monthly and annual calibration percent bias ranged from 4 to 7 and 5 to 7, respectively. The validation period resulted in all but two E NS values less than zero. Monthly and annual validation R 2 values ranged from 0.5 to 0.67 and 0.25 to 0.48, respectively. Monthly and annual validation percent bias ranged from 46 to 68 for both time steps. A daily calibration and validation for nitrate loads was not performed because of the poor monthly and annual results; measured daily nitrate data are available for intervals of time in 2009 and 2010 during which a successful monthly and annual calibration could not be achieved. The Cedar River Basin is densely gaged relative to other basins in Iowa; therefore, an alternative hydrology scenario was created to assess the predictive capabilities of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool using fewer locations of measured data for model hydrology calibration. Although the ability of the model to reproduce measured values improves with the number of calibration locations, results indicate that the Soil and Water Assessment Tool can be used to adequately estimate streamflow in less densely gaged basins throughout the State, especially at the monthly time step. However, results also indicate that caution should be used when calibrating a subbasin that consists of physically distinct regions based on only one streamflow-gaging station.

Iowa↗

USGS2013

Comparison between two statistically based methods, and two physically based models developed to compute daily mean streamflow at ungaged locations in the Cedar River Basin, Iowa

A variety of individuals from water resource managers to recreational users need streamflow information for planning and decisionmaking at locations where there are no streamgages. To address this problem, two statistically based methods, the Flow Duration Curve Transfer method and the Flow Anywhere method, were developed for statewide application and the two physically based models, the Precipitation Runoff Modeling-System and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool, were only developed for application for the Cedar River Basin. Observed and estimated streamflows for the two methods and models were compared for goodness of fit at 13 streamgages modeled in the Cedar River Basin by using the Nash-Sutcliffe and the percent-bias efficiency values. Based on median and mean Nash-Sutcliffe values for the 13 streamgages the Precipitation Runoff Modeling-System and Soil and Water Assessment Tool models appear to have performed similarly and better than Flow Duration Curve Transfer and Flow Anywhere methods. Based on median and mean percent bias values, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool model appears to have generally overestimated daily mean streamflows, whereas the Precipitation Runoff Modeling-System model and statistical methods appear to have underestimated daily mean streamflows. The Flow Duration Curve Transfer method produced the lowest median and mean percent bias values and appears to perform better than the other models.

Iowa↗

USGS2012

Watershed scale response to climate change--Clear Creek Basin, Iowa

General Circulation Model simulations of future climate through 2099 project a wide range of possible scenarios. To determine the sensitivity and potential effect of long-term climate change on the freshwater resources of the United States, the U.S. Geological Survey Global Change study, "An integrated watershed scale response to global change in selected basins across the United States" was started in 2008. The long-term goal of this national study is to provide the foundation for hydrologically based climate change studies across the nation. Fourteen basins for which the Precipitation Runoff Modeling System has been calibrated and evaluated were selected as study sites. Precipitation Runoff Modeling System is a deterministic, distributed parameter watershed model developed to evaluate the effects of various combinations of precipitation, temperature, and land use on streamflow and general basin hydrology. Output from five General Circulation Model simulations and four emission scenarios were used to develop an ensemble of climate-change scenarios for each basin. These ensembles were simulated with the corresponding Precipitation Runoff Modeling System model. This fact sheet summarizes the hydrologic effect and sensitivity of the Precipitation Runoff Modeling System simulations to climate change for the Clear Creek Basin, near Coralville, Iowa.

Iowa↗

USGS2012

Integrated watershed-scale response to climate change for selected basins across the United States

A study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) evaluated the hydrologic response to different projected carbon emission scenarios of the 21st century using a hydrologic simulation model. This study involved five major steps: (1) setup, calibrate and evaluated the Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) model in 14 basins across the United States by local USGS personnel; (2) acquire selected simulated carbon emission scenarios from the World Climate Research Programme's Coupled Model Intercomparison Project; (3) statistical downscaling of these scenarios to create PRMS input files which reflect the future climatic conditions of these scenarios; (4) generate PRMS projections for the carbon emission scenarios for the 14 basins; and (5) analyze the modeled hydrologic response. This report presents an overview of this study, details of the methodology, results from the 14 basin simulations, and interpretation of these results. A key finding is that the hydrological response of the different geographical regions of the United States to potential climate change may be different, depending on the dominant physical processes of that particular region. Also considered is the tremendous amount of uncertainty present in the carbon emission scenarios and how this uncertainty propagates through the hydrologic simulations.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2012

Simulation of daily streamflows at gaged and ungaged locations within the Cedar River Basin, Iowa, using a Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, conducted a study to examine techniques for estimation of daily streamflows using hydrological models and statistical methods. This report focuses on the use of a hydrologic model, the U.S. Geological Survey's Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System, to estimate daily streamflows at gaged and ungaged locations. The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System is a modular, physically based, distributed-parameter modeling system developed to evaluate the impacts of various combinations of precipitation, climate, and land use on surface-water runoff and general basin hydrology. The Cedar River Basin was selected to construct a Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model that simulates the period from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2010. The calibration period was from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2004, and the validation periods were from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2010 and January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2010. A Geographic Information System tool was used to delineate the Cedar River Basin and subbasins for the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model and to derive parameters based on the physical geographical features. Calibration of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model was completed using a U.S. Geological Survey calibration software tool. The main objective of the calibration was to match the daily streamflow simulated by the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model with streamflow measured at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow gages. The Cedar River Basin daily streamflow model performed with a Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency ranged from 0.82 to 0.33 during the calibration period, and a Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency ranged from 0.77 to -0.04 during the validation period. The Cedar River Basin model is meeting the criteria of greater than 0.50 Nash-Sutcliffe and is a good fit for streamflow conditions for the calibration period at all but one location, Austin, Minnesota. The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model accurately simulated streamflow at four of six uncalibrated sites within the basin. Overall, there was good agreement between simulated and measured seasonal and annual volumes throughout the basin for calibration and validation sites. The calibration period ranged from 0.2 to 20.8 percent difference, and the validation period ranged from 0.0 to 19.5 percent difference across all seasons and total annual runoff. The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model tended to underestimate lower streamflows compared to the observed streamflow values. This is an indication that the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling model needs more detailed groundwater and storage information to properly model the low-flow conditions in the Cedar River Basin.

Iowa↗

USGS2009

Dye tracer tests to determine time-of-travel in Iowa streams, 1990–2006

Dye-tracing tests have been used by the U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa Water Science Center to determine the time-of-travel in selected Iowa streams from 1990-2006. Time-of-travel data are tabulated for 309 miles of stream reaches in four Iowa drainage basins: the Des Moines, Raccoon, Cedar, and Turkey Rivers. Time-of-travel was estimated in the Des Moines River, Fourmile Creek, North Raccoon River, Raccoon River, Cedar River, and Roberts Creek. Estimation of time-of-travel is important for environmental studies and in determining fate of agricultural constituents and chemical movement through a waterway. The stream reaches range in length from slightly more than 5 miles on Fourmile Creek, to more than 137 miles on the North Raccoon River. The travel times during the dye-tracer tests ranged from 7.5 hours on Fourmile Creek to as long as 200 hours on Roberts Creek; velocities ranged from less than 4.50 feet per minute on Roberts Creek to more than 113 feet per minute on the Cedar River.

Iowa↗

USGS2008

Flood-plain study of the Upper Iowa River in the vicinity of Decorah, Iowa

The city of Decorah, Iowa, has experienced severe flooding from the Upper Iowa River resulting in property damage to homes and businesses. Streamflow data from two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow-gaging stations, the Upper Iowa River at Decorah, Iowa (station number 05387500), located upstream from the College Drive bridge; and the Upper Iowa River near Decorah, Iowa (station number 05388000), at the Clay Hill Road bridge (locally known as the Freeport bridge) were used in the study. The three largest floods on the Upper Iowa River at Decorah occurred in 1941, 1961, and 1993, for which the estimated peak discharges were 27,200 cubic feet per second (ft3/s), 20,200 ft3/s, and 20,500 ft3/s, respectively. Flood-discharge information can be obtained from the World Wide Web at URL (uniform resource locator) http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/ . In response to the need to provide the City of Decorah and other flood-plain managers with an assessment of the risks of flooding to properties and facilities along an 8.5-mile (mi) reach of the Upper Iowa River, the USGS, in cooperation with the City of Decorah, initiated a study to map 100- and 500-year flood-prone areas.

Iowa↗

USGS2004

Riverbed elevations and water quality of the Missouri River at Sioux City, Iowa, 2002-03

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the City of Sioux City, Iowa, conducted an investigation of the Missouri River, during 2002-2003, to assess changes in riverbed elevations from its confluence with the Big Sioux River, downstream to the area of the Sioux City municipal well field. Water-quality samples also were collected across the Missouri River to provide additional information on the differences between the water quality of the Missouri River and Big Sioux River in the well field area. The water supply at Sioux City, Iowa, is withdrawn from fourteen vertical wells and one horizontal collector well. Twelve vertical wells and the collector well are completed in the alluvial sand and gravel aquifer adjacent to the Missouri River at Sioux City. The well field is located on the left bank (looking downstream) of the Missouri River about 0.5 mile upstream from USGS streamflow gage 06486000, and approximately 5,000 feet downstream from the confluence with the Big Sioux River. The Missouri River, adjacent to the Sioux City alluvial well field, consists of the combined streamflows from the Missouri and the Big Sioux Rivers. The streamflows do not appear to be well mixed downstream from the confluence, and the streamflow directly adjacent to the well field could be predominately from the Big Sioux River. The U.S. Geological Survey measures streamflow on the Missouri River at Sioux City, Iowa (USGS streamflow gage 06486000). The riverbed of the Missouri River at Sioux City consists of a sequence of sands and gravels. The surface of the riverbed is undulatory, with continuously migrating riverbed forms, 5 to 8 feet in relief, of sand and gravel. Measurements of riverbed elevations from October 1, 2002, to September 30, 2003, showed an annual change of as much as 8 feet with the majority of the riverbed change closer to 5 feet. The largest change occurred near a wing dike on the Nebraska side of the Missouri River. On the Iowa side, the annual change was close to 5 feet. The results showed that channel fill occurred in the winter months and scour occurred during the summer months. Results of analyses of water samples collected at five locations across the Missouri River, near the municipal well field, were similar for most samples. Higher values of specific conductance and turbidity were recorded on the Iowa side of the Missouri River, the side from which the Big Sioux River enters upstream. Higher concentrations of chloride, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, and atrazine also were detected on the Iowa side of the Missouri River. Based on these results, there does not appear to be complete mixing of water from the Missouri and Big Sioux Rivers near the municipal well field.

Iowa↗